Search (200 results, page 1 of 10)

0.193187 = product of:
  0.45076966 = sum of:
    0.064395666 = product of:
      0.193187 = sum of:
        0.193187 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.193187 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.193187 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.193187 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.193187 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.193187 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.16098918 = product of:
  0.3756414 = sum of:
    0.05366306 = product of:
      0.16098918 = sum of:
        0.16098918 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16098918 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.16098918 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16098918 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.16098918 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16098918 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34373808 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.09745496 = product of:
  0.2273949 = sum of:
    0.06027187 = weight(_text_:industry in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06027187 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2351482 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.112790324 = weight(_text_:united in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.112790324 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.0543327 = product of:
      0.1086654 = sum of:
        0.1086654 = weight(_text_:states in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1086654 = score(doc=829,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Constructivism in the social sciences has known several ups and downs over the last decades. It was successful rather early in sociology but hotly contested in International Politics/Relations (IR). Oddly enough, just at the moments it made important inroads into the research agenda and became accepted by the mainstream, the enthusiasm for it waned. Many constructivists-as did mainstream scholars-moved from "grand theory" or even "meta-theory" toward "normal science," or experimented with other (eclectic) approaches, of which the turns to practices, to emotions, to new materialism, to the visual, and to the queer are some of the latest manifestations. In a way, constructivism was "successful," on the one hand, by introducing norms, norm-dynamics, and diffusion; the role of new actors in world politics; and the changing role of institutions into the debates, while losing, on the other hand, much of its critical potential. The latter survived only on the fringes-and in Europe more than in the United States. In IR, curiously, constructivism, which was rooted in various European traditions (philosophy, history, linguistics, social analysis), was originally introduced in Europe via the disciplinary discussions taking place in the United States. Yet, especially in its critical version, it has found a more conducive environment in Europe than in the United States.
In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.

0.063773505 = product of:
  0.22320727 = sum of:
    0.0996935 = weight(_text_:united in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0996935 = score(doc=1017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
    0.12351376 = sum of:
      0.09604755 = weight(_text_:states in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09604755 = score(doc=1017,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04054466 = queryNorm
          0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027466208 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04054466 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.

Date

22. 7.2023 13:28:28

0.05573588 = product of:
  0.19507557 = sum of:
    0.0996935 = weight(_text_:united in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0996935 = score(doc=313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.09538208 = sum of:
      0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06791587 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04054466 = queryNorm
          0.304198 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
      0.027466208 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027466208 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14198048 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04054466 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.

0.055670694 = product of:
  0.12989828 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 5947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=5947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5947)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The forced displacement and transnational migration of millions of people around the world is a growing phenomenon that has been met with increased surveillance and datafication by a variety of actors. Small humanitarian organizations that help irregular migrants in the United States frequently do not have the resources or expertise to fully address the implications of collecting, storing, and using data about the vulnerable populations they serve. As a result, there is a risk that their work could exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the very same migrants they are trying to help. In this study, we propose a conceptual framework for protecting privacy in the context of humanitarian information activities (HIA) with irregular migrants. We draw from a review of the academic literature as well as interviews with individuals affiliated with several US-based humanitarian organizations, higher education institutions, and nonprofit organizations that provide support to undocumented migrants. We discuss 3 primary issues: (i) HIA present both technological and human risks; (ii) the expectation of privacy self-management by vulnerable populations is problematic; and (iii) there is a need for robust, actionable, privacy-related guidelines for HIA. We suggest 5 recommendations to strengthen the privacy protection offered to undocumented migrants and other vulnerable populations.

0.055670694 = product of:
  0.12989828 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

A second presidential social media transition in the United States occurred as Joe Biden took office on January 20, 2021. In the years since Barack Obama pioneered the use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter while President, Donald Trump shaped his Presidency around the use of Twitter, primarily through a personal account created before entering politics. In this paper, we examine Donald Trump's use of Twitter during his presidency as a lens through which to understand the ongoing archival preservation and data management challenges posed by social media platforms. The blurred lines between public and private records, deleting tweets, and the preservation issues that appeared after his suspension from Twitter and other platforms following the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol all highlight an urgent, ongoing need by archivists, digital preservationists, and information scholars to consider how we might collect and manage social media records in an ever-changing information landscape. This paper draws primarily on publicly available information from existing preservation initiatives to analyze the state of digital preservation for presidential records. Our findings highlight how both public and private entities manage and provide access to Donald Trump's tweets, pointing to broader implications for social media data preservation.

0.05346058 = product of:
  0.18711202 = sum of:
    0.1395709 = weight(_text_:united in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1395709 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.6136061 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.04754111 = product of:
      0.09508222 = sum of:
        0.09508222 = weight(_text_:states in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508222 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Cataloguing Code of Ethics, released in January 2021, was the product of a multi-national, multi-year endeavor by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee to create a useful framework for the discussion of cataloging ethics. The six Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee members, based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, recount the efforts of the group and the cataloging community leading up to the release of the Code, as well as provide their thoughts on the challenges of creating the document, lessons learned, and the future of the Code.

0.047749437 = product of:
  0.16712302 = sum of:
    0.112790324 = weight(_text_:united in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.112790324 = score(doc=641,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
    0.0543327 = product of:
      0.1086654 = sum of:
        0.1086654 = weight(_text_:states in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1086654 = score(doc=641,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

LCSH

Sex role in the work environment / United States / History
Sexual division of labor / United States / History

Subject

Sex role in the work environment / United States / History
Sexual division of labor / United States / History

0.04582335 = product of:
  0.16038172 = sum of:
    0.1196322 = weight(_text_:united in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1196322 = score(doc=1150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.52594805 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
    0.040749524 = product of:
      0.08149905 = sum of:
        0.08149905 = weight(_text_:states in 1150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08149905 = score(doc=1150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 1150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This is an overview of the development of FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) from its inception in the late 1990s, through its development and implementation to the work being undertaken by OCLC and the FAST Policy and Outreach Committee (FPOC) to develop and promote FAST. FPOC members explain how FAST is used by institutions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They cover their experience of implementing FAST and the benefits they have derived. The final section considers the value of FAST as a faceted vocabulary and the potential for future development and linked data.

0.041780755 = product of:
  0.14623263 = sum of:
    0.09869153 = weight(_text_:united in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09869153 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.04754111 = product of:
      0.09508222 = sum of:
        0.09508222 = weight(_text_:states in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508222 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Twitter is utilized by many, including professional businesses and organizations; however, there are very few studies on how other entities interact with these organizations in the Twittersphere. This article presents a study that investigates tweets related to 5 major library and information science (LIS) professional organizations in the United States. This study applies a systematic tweets analysis framework, including descriptive analytics, network analytics, and co-word analysis of hashtags. The findings shed light on user engagement with LIS professional organizations and the trending discussion topics on Twitter, which is valuable for enabling more successful social media use and greater influence.

0.041780755 = product of:
  0.14623263 = sum of:
    0.09869153 = weight(_text_:united in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09869153 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.04754111 = product of:
      0.09508222 = sum of:
        0.09508222 = weight(_text_:states in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508222 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article offers a basic introduction to classification in the context of librarianship in the United States with an aim toward filling gaps in formal education and practical experience. The article defines the concept of classification and discusses the goals and purposes of classification, both functional and intellectual. Overviews of two common classification systems frequently used in U.S. libraries are presented: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Library of Congress Classification (LCC), as well as an introduction to a group of classifications known as "reader-interest classifications."

0.041780755 = product of:
  0.14623263 = sum of:
    0.09869153 = weight(_text_:united in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09869153 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
    0.04754111 = product of:
      0.09508222 = sum of:
        0.09508222 = weight(_text_:states in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508222 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This study examines users' needs for bibliographic enhancement data (BIBED) in academic library catalogs. Qualitative data were collected through 30 academic users' activity logs and follow-up interviews. These 30 participants were recruited from a public university in the United States that has over 19,000 students enrolled and over 600 full-time faculty members. This study identified 19 types of BIBED useful for supporting the five user tasks proposed in the IFLA Library Reference Model and in seven other contexts, such as enhancing one's understanding, offering search instructions, and providing readers' advisory. Findings suggest that adopting BIBFRAME and Semantic Web technologies may enable academic library catalogs to provide BIBED to better meet user needs in various contexts.

0.035812076 = product of:
  0.12534226 = sum of:
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
    0.040749524 = product of:
      0.08149905 = sum of:
        0.08149905 = weight(_text_:states in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08149905 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The modern classification of mathematical subjects occurred within the larger framework of library classification, a project receiving sustained attention in the period from 1870 to the present. The early work of the library cataloguers was carried out against the background of a broad nineteenth-century interest in the classification of knowledge. We explore different views during this period concerning the position of mathematics in the overall scheme of knowledge, the scope of mathematics and the internal organization of the different parts of mathematics. We examine how mathematical books were classified, from the most general level down to the level of particular subject areas in analysis. The focus is on the Library of Congress Classification in its various iterations from 1905 to the present. The article ends with an examination of the Mathematics Subject Classification Scheme employed today by reviewing services Mathematical Reviews in the United States and Zentralblatt in Germany.

0.035812076 = product of:
  0.12534226 = sum of:
    0.084592745 = weight(_text_:united in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084592745 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
    0.040749524 = product of:
      0.08149905 = sum of:
        0.08149905 = weight(_text_:states in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08149905 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

How scholars and IRBs perceive and apply the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research was an open and largely neglected question. As crowd work becomes increasingly popular for scholars to implement research and collect data, such negligence, signaling a lack of attention to the ethical issues in crowd work-based research more broadly, seemed alarming. To fill this gap, we conducted a qualitative study with 32 scholars and IRB directors/analysts in the United States to inquire into their perceptions and applications of the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research. We found two dilemmas in applying the Belmont principles in crowd work-based research, namely the dilemma between the dehumanization and expected autonomy of crowd workers, and the dilemma between the monetary incentive/reputationall risks and the conventional notion of research benefits/risks. We also compared the scholars' and IRBs' ethical perspectives and proposed our research implications for future work.

0.035754256 = product of:
  0.12513989 = sum of:
    0.025446396 = weight(_text_:management in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446396 = score(doc=5952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13666032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
    0.0996935 = weight(_text_:united in 5952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0996935 = score(doc=5952,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 5952, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5952)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

0.029843397 = product of:
  0.10445189 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=5938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 5938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=5938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Employers are increasingly using information and communication technologies to monitor employees. Such workplace surveillance is extensive in the United States, but its experience and potential consequences differ across groups based on gender. We thus sought to identify whether self-reported male and female employees differ in the extent to which they find the use of workplace cameras equipped with facial recognition technology (FRT) acceptable, and examine the role of privacy attitudes more generally in mediating views on workplace surveillance. Using data from a nationally representative survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, we find that women are much less likely than men to approve of the use of cameras using FRT in the workplace. We then further explore whether men and women think differently about privacy, and if perceptions of privacy moderate the relationship between gender and approval of workplace surveillance. Finally, we consider the implications of these findings for privacy and surveillance via embedded technologies, and how the consequences of surveillance and technologies like FRT may be gendered. Note: We recognize evaluations based on a binary definition of gender are invariably partial and exclusionary. As we note in our discussion of the study's limitations, we were constrained by the survey categories provided by Pew.

0.029843397 = product of:
  0.10445189 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=5,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The benefits of open data for helping to address societal problems and strengthen communities are well recognized, and unfortunately previous studies found that smaller communities are often excluded from the current data ecosystem because of existing technological, technical, cognitive, and practical barriers. This study aims to investigate the process of communities' data use for community development and decision-making-focusing on the opportunities and challenges of data for communities. From the interviews with 25 staff from community-based organizations (CBOs) in nine small, medium, and large cities in the United States, the findings of this study describe data's role in supporting communities' development while reporting several major challenges that hinder CBOs data use: difficulty accessing data, limitations of open data (un-local nature, excluding essential data from being open), limited data capacity (especially in data literacy skills), and difficulties using and accessing existing data infrastructures. Our findings suggest opportunities for addressing these challenges, particularly by creating educational programming, building partnerships within data ecosystems, and bringing community voices forward in current data ecosystems, which are critical to realizing data's potential for all citizens.

0.029843397 = product of:
  0.10445189 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Credibility assessment is a crucial component in the process of people's health information seeking, especially in the web context. Finding "credible" health information from a plethora of information on the web may be more challenging for older adults, who have relatively less experience with the Internet. This article reports on the findings of an exploratory study of older adults' credibility assessments of online health information. The data collected through semistructured interviews with 21 older adult Internet users in the United States were analyzed based on the extended typology of web credibility (Choi & Stvilia, 2015, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2399-2414). The findings of the study revealed that older adults paid closer attention to operator-related credibility cues and heuristics when judging the credibility of health information on the web, followed by content- and design-related ones. Also, the findings suggest that participants who were younger and used the Internet more frequently employed a wider variety of cues and heuristics to evaluate the credibility of online health information. Based on these findings, both theoretical and practical implications of the research and future research directions are discussed.

0.029843397 = product of:
  0.10445189 = sum of:
    0.07049395 = weight(_text_:united in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07049395 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2274601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04054466 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
    0.033957936 = product of:
      0.06791587 = sum of:
        0.06791587 = weight(_text_:states in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791587 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22326207 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04054466 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper examines how shared affiliations within an institution (e.g., same primary appointment, same secondary appointment, same research center, same laboratory/facility) and physical proximity (e.g., walking distance between collaborator offices) shape knowledge creation through biomedical science collaboration in general, and interdisciplinary collaboration in particular. Using archival and publication data, we examine pairwise research collaborations among 1,138 faculty members over a 12-year period at a medical school in the United States. Modeling at the dyadic level, we find that faculty members with more shared institutional affiliations are positively associated with knowledge creation and knowledge impact, and that this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We further find that the positive influence of disciplinary diversity (e.g., collaborators from different fields) on knowledge impact is stronger among pairs that share more affiliations and is significantly reduced as the physical distance among collaborators increases. These results support the idea that shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity can increase interpersonal contact, providing more opportunities to develop trust and mutual understanding, and thus alleviating some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher disciplinary diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on scientific collaborations, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.